this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
373 points (97.0% liked)

politics

19148 readers
3487 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
373
Opinion: Has the Republican Party proved to be so anti-government that it cannot govern at all? (www.latimes.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/politics
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The broken GOP has a majority in the House in name only. It's giving frightening new meaning to the old saw about politicians' forming a circular firing squad.

top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Short answers: "yes." Longer answer: "Yeah."

in any case, this is the crux of it:

Republicans have the majority in the House, but it’s a majority in name only. In reality, the House Republicans are an amalgam of competing factions, from right to far-right to extremist, and party members genuinely loathe one another more than they dislike Democrats.

If we consider that the freedom caucus is in the process of splitting of and treat it as though it were a third party.... then you would see that republicans don't have a majority at all.

[–] Nightwingdragon 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem is that neither does anybody else.

The ironic thing about all of this is that the Founding Fathers structured everything in such a way that this should have never been an issue at all. It was originally designed for all parties to vote on a speaker. Whether or not there were two parties, three parties, or 27 parties is irrelevant. The speaker was intended to be someone that all parties could agree on, not just the majority party.

It only got this way because tribal politics has taken over our entire political system, devolving into tribal warfare and an "us vs them" mentality. Compromise or even acknowledgement that the other side may have a valid point on anything is considered weakness and is not acceptable. It has reshaped both houses of Congress into a two-party system where one side is openly admitting they refuse to work with the other side because fuck you that's why. The problem is that the two-party tribal warfare system cannot even begin to function when there are effectively three tribes digging in their heels, none with the defining majority, and each seeing the other two as adversaries.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't George Washington warn about political parties taking over and making things worse? Maybe he had something there.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They may have warned about it, but with FPTP, they designed a system that forces tribalism. So I guess good on him for seeing the issue they made, but less good that they opted to create it.

[–] caffinatedone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The ironic thing about all of this is that the Founding Fathers structured everything in such a way that this should have never been an issue at all. It was originally designed for all parties to vote on a speaker. Whether or not there were two parties, three parties, or 27 parties is irrelevant. The speaker was intended to be someone that all parties could agree on, not just the majority party.

How so? The structure has 'majority wins' and there's nothing to compel the majority to vote for a candidate that 'all parties agree on', nor would that even make sense.

It only got this way because tribal politics has taken over our entire political system, devolving into tribal warfare and an “us vs them” mentality...

This may not be your intent, but this reads like a very elaborate "both sides' argument, when it's really clear that the pathological behavior here isn't evenly distributed between the 'tribes'.

If the roles were reversed, I'd be shocked if Democrats didn't compromise and put in place a power-sharing agreement to allow the House to function.

[–] Nightwingdragon 4 points 1 year ago

How so? The structure has ‘majority wins’ and there’s nothing to compel the majority to vote for a candidate that ‘all parties agree on’, nor would that even make sense.

The structure wasn't specifically designed with two parties. In fact, many of the founding fathers were against the idea of parties at all. It was designed to accomodate multiple parties.

Look at it this way. Let's say the MAGA wing officially defects from the main GOP and forms its own party (which is essentially what's happening in practice if not officially right now). We now would have three parties, none of which would actually have a majority. What are we supposed to do? Stand around and shrug for the next two years? Hold a WWE deathmatch to determine the winner? No. Eventually, they're going to have to find one candidate that all parties can agree on. Maybe some moderate Republicans join Democrats in voting for Jeffries. Maybe some centrist Democrats break ranks and vote for a moderate Republican. Maybe the moderate Republicans just get worn out and vote for one of the crazies in MAGA. But when you have 3 parties trying to work in a system that was hijacked to accomodate only two parties, something's got to give.

This may not be your intent, but this reads like a very elaborate "both sides’ argument, when it’s really clear that the pathological behavior here isn’t evenly distributed between the ‘tribes’.

I didn't say it was, but it doesn't change the fact that it's what happened.

If the roles were reversed, I’d be shocked if Democrats didn’t compromise and put in place a power-sharing agreement to allow the House to function.

They're trying to get away from this because the Democrats have a reputation for caving in the end, and getting shafted for it. Look at what McCarthy just did to them. He worked with Dems to get a debt ceiling bill passed, and then reneged on the deal the nanosecond it became politically inconvenient for him. Multiple high-ranking Republicans are outright saying any deal that involves Democrats is off the table. Many are outright blaming Democrats for their own mess, and demanding that Democrats save them from themselves so they can go right back to shitting on Democrats.. McCarthy himself outright said that they know they're supposed to be working with Democrats and that this is the way it was originally intended to function, but they just don't want to.

Why the fuck would Democrats want to work with them if this is the way they're going to be treated? Why the fuck would Democrats want to work with them when they outright say that this is the way they'll treat Democrats anyway?

If Democrats caved (again) and entered into a power-sharing agreement, they immediately lose all leverage the minute that speaker is actually installed. There would be nothing stopping the Speaker from reneging on a deal the exact same way McCarthy did, and since they're in the minority, any attempt at actually enforcing the agreement would just be voted down by the GOP. They'd collectively look like Charlie Brown as the GOP once again yanks the football away.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The fact that the Republicans party still can't ban together and oust Trump is telling. It feels like most of the Republican candidates for president are competing to be Trump's VP

[–] FuglyDuck 5 points 1 year ago

They missed their chance to oust him during the second impeachment.

If they had done it then, and voted to bar him from future office, we’d be in a very different place. But nobody listens to me. (Well, nobody that matters,)

[–] jaybone 2 points 1 year ago

Competing to be the next guy to be hanged.

[–] grue 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They don't want to govern. What they want is to rule autocratically, and they'll solve their infighting problems by the winning faction simply purging its enemies.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They want to rule, and if they don't get to rule then they're happy to burn everything to the ground so that other people don't get what they want either.

And it doesn't matter if those "other people" are Republicans, too.

[–] Drivebyhaiku 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They want small government. Small, weak and unable to defend itself.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

No they don't. There is nothing small about the government they want.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will cut the government and not replace it with anything. They have no plan to improve the lives of the people that vote for them.

[–] agent_flounder 15 points 1 year ago

Their only plan is to rule not to help. They want power. By any means necessary. Destroying faith in our system of government and destroying checks and balances eventually leads to more power for the governing and less for the governed.

[–] dhork 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Like-minded conservative voters — small-dollar donors steeped in Fox News — bankroll the chaos agents

It's an interesting concept, to think that it's the small dollar donors enabling this. But I think that the real culprit here are the super large, dark money donors. You know, the ones that Republicans opened up the floodgates to as part of that Citizens United thing. Money is Speech, and all that.

I don't think that when the Supreme Court made that ruling, they intended for it to be a conduit for direct foreign influence on politicians. But the independent, unaccountable political spending that Citizens United enables has to be funded from somewhere. And it's trivially easy for these foreign sources to disguise their money trail to make things look legit. (Or, do you really think Bob Menendez is the only foreign agent in Congress?)

If you were a foreign power looking to neutralize the US Government, your best bet might be to use back channels to fund enough stubborn Congressmen to get them in office, and tell them to raise as much hell as they want to, and not compromise with anyone, because you will have their back.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

yes. citizens unites is the worst thing we have politically. I would rid it above all other things as much of the rest would get resolved for the better by it not being a thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

But that's the thing, like with most of our country those massive donors aren't evenly distributed amongst the party. The super super pacs seem to have settled into the people they felt most able to get their agenda done and left out the others and they have been working with literally a smaller budget from smaller donors and thus don't feel as beholden to making the system, that isn't working for them as much as their peers, keep working.

And then allowing money to speak and anyone with some money having a say just makes it worse and a thousand voices trying to be the loudest and the richest at the end of this road.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

yes. many years ago.

[–] assassin_aragorn 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep.

So, with that out of the way. How's the weather for you guys?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Far too warm for my liking. I expect autumn to be cold.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Been freezing where I'm at. I'll trade ya

[–] pottedmeat7910 5 points 1 year ago

Finally getting that autumn cold snap with the changing of leaves here in New England.

Also, Republicans are fucking useless.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah

[–] ohlaph 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It seems like it. They purposely cause things to just not function, then say government doesn't work. In Oregon, they are trying to avoid purposely driven slow downs by keeping tabs on attendance for senators and if they miss like 10 appearances for voting, they are bared from running for office again. Measure 113 which was passed in 2022 in Oregon. However, it's being challenged currently, so we'll see what happens.

It's a good idea to force collaboration.

Edit: link to the actual measure for those interested.

[–] LEDZeppelin 9 points 1 year ago

No shit Sherlock

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

It's giving frightening new meaning to the old saw about politicians' forming a circular firing squad.

If they only had the spine to pull the trigger.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So, our government is at a standstill because six(?), less than ten(?), people are pushing the lie about the 2020 election? This country seems to becoming increasingly fragile.

This may seem out of place but I'm still pushing the idea of Ranked Choice Voting resolving a lot of these issues. It's a seemingly reasonable method of ensuring the contentment of the vast majority of voters and taking down the power of polarization. The greatest threat is that to the extremist media.

[–] AA5B 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For me, the worst part is they don’t even pretend anymore. They used to have constructive goals that could seem like a good idea to consider. I could listen to that and decide whether it seems good or not. But I don’t remember the last time I heard any positive goal from any conservative …..

maybe Romney a few years back was proposing something with actual family values, a benefit for kids, I don’t know if bigger tax break or healthcare or childcare or something, but it was drowned out pretty quickly with calls to break and destroy and ruin, calls to enrich the wealthy and remove support for regular people

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Usually when a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is "no".

Except for this time.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil -1 points 1 year ago

This was true back under Reagan.

Hilarious to see folks running these Op-Eds forty years after it was obvious.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Thank you, Captain Obvious.